Nerdlife

Note: I came home today planning to write about this topic. Then I read Jared’s post (see #4). Bastard stole my thunder (because obviously I’m the first one to consider this analogy :-P).

I’ve often heard the saying “being married to your work”, and I frequently consider the similarities between startups and relationships. For one, on any given day I’m mulling around a few ideas for startups, and most days my thoughts also lead to my lack of a girlfriend and possibly solutions to that situation. There are many things that are nearly identical when it comes to the “game” (as so many, excluding myself, like to call it) of dating and the process of forming a startup. Allow me to elaborate:

Startups

Girlfriends/Relationships

---

Convince successful people that they should invest their faith (and money) into your idea

Convince women that they should invest their faith (and time) into you

---

You spend an obscene amount of time working on them

You spend an obscene amount of time with them
(I will avoid the pun here…)

---

They have the potential for huge monetary payoffs, yet few reach this potential

They have the potential for huge emotional payoffs, yet few reach this potential

---

It helps to be rich

It helps to be rich

---

They’re very internet-focused, and meeting co-founders online is no longer necessarily a bad idea

They’re becoming very internet-focused, and meeting women online is no longer necessarily a bad idea

---

Many people try for years to successfully start one, and once successful find that it’s a lot of work

Many people try for years to successfully find one, and once successful find that it’s a lot of work

---

They will sap your free time and life

They will sap your free time and life

---

All joking aside, I do think that this is a notable thing: if you expect to have a steady relationship while working on a startup, 9 times out of 10 one of the two will fail. You need to have an amazing devotion to both, very understanding co-founders/significant other, and full acceptance of the fact that your sleep will suffer double the amount it normally would.I do have a possible solution, though it takes a certain type: date your co-founder (or co-found with your significant other). This only works with 2 founders (being the 3rd+ wheel is never fun…). It seems to be a wonderful test of a relationship. If two people can spend nearly all day together with very little sleep working on what has been called “an emotional rollercoaster” by many and not end up killing each other (sounds like a reality TV show…) it must speak volumes of their bond. Don’t we look for similar qualities from our co-founders and our significant others, trust, honesty, devotion, ability to put up with them for long periods of time, sense of humor. The only difference from my point of view is whether or not gender plays a role. I even submit that there must be a certain chemistry between co-founders, similar to romance but without the lust.

This does create a whole new slew of problems though. Double the stress, emotion, and time spent together, add a touch of competitiveness. Hell, while we’re at it, throw in some romance and programming. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “late night at the office”.

So, any young entrepreneurial women looking for a good time co-founder?

Disclaimer for those looking to form a startup: The above was written with a strong sense of humor and mild sarcasm in mind. If you are offended by anything I say, or even consider, for a moment, taking me seriously, how can you ever expect to survive months working day and night with the same people (dating or otherwise)? Really, laugh a little, you’ll live longer.

girlfriends, relationships, startups

I have a simple answer to the question of why Silicon Valley is the hub for all things startupy (I swear it’s a real word…). While this answer is probably glaringly obvious to those in the SF Bay area, those who have never been here (such as myself less than 2 months ago) seem a lot less likely to realize it. It’s the density of important people.

In the last few months I have met a ridiculously large number of entrepreneurs: everyone from CEOs of multi-billion-dollar conglomerates to immensely successful businesspeople-turned-investors to tons of everyday (and I use the term very loosely, because most of these people are anything but “everyday”) startup founders. I’ve received 2 or 3 job offers, had so many famous names thrown at me that I can only hope to remember a few of them. It’s been immensely awe-inspiring. How many people with such influence have I met on Long Island or in Pittsburgh? A few at best (no offense Luis). It’s a more advanced case of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. If you put a thousand entrepreneurs in a room with a thousand computers, you will almost surely wind up with a thousand successful startups, while one entrepreneur is less likely to produce one startup in isolation. To put it more succinctly:

The number of brilliant ideas increases exponentially with the number of brilliant people.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

krausz's law, silicon valley, startups

I’d like to touch on something that seems to be lacking lately, something very necessary to most aspects of life. The last 10%.

It’s incredibly easy to release a product. All you need to do is design something, manufacture it, and bam, you’re done. But releasing a really good product, the kind the revolutionizes things, requires a lot more. It requires getting every little detail right, every small thing perfect, to such an extent that people have to try to find something wrong with it. It requires the last 10%.

There are three products I can think of that are good example of the necessity of this. Now, I’m not going to comment on the quality or completeness of these three, but they illustrate why getting everything right is so important.

• Facebook Platform - This product has the potential to “revolutionize the internet”, but will it? Look at the documentation. Now try to use said documentation. It’s missing several things, and there are several non-intuitive quirks that make it difficult to write apps (did you know that clickrewriteurl requires a clickrewriteform if it’s not inside a form?). They also change the API and tell people to “make sure their programs aren’t broken”. It’s called consistency. They should be catering to their developers when it comes to the API, instead they’re taking the stance of “you’re lucky we’re doing this for you”. While Facebook is probably big enough that they can afford to do that, it’s still a very poor business practice.
• iPhone - I’ve yet to see an iPhone, but look at the media attention it’s been receiving. We have one of the most advanced all-in-on devices every created, and the main focus has been on the keyboard, and how “it’s so hard to type on”. I’m not saying this is true, false, or important, but it’s noteworthy that the media focus always lands on the bad. For a product to get great, or even above-average reviews, it can’t have a single flaw, because the media likes disasters better than triumphs (thus the phrase”no news is good news”).
• YouTube - YouTube is not a technical triumph. Sure, it’s a lot of data and a lot of bandwidth, but there wasn’t a whole lot to it that wasn’t thought of before. Then why was is the such an astronomical success? A lot can be attributed to timing, but just as much is in the site itself. It did one thing, and was the first to do it really well. Upload your video, regardless of what it is, and let people view it. Done. Brilliant. W00t!

So next time you’re about to launch a potentially revolutionary product, think to yourself “did I finish that last 10%?”. Because if you’re not giving 100%, what’s the point in even trying?

apple, facebook, motivation, startups, youtube

I found a read with an interesting perspective: The Pmarca Guide to Startups, part 1: Why not to do a startup. They list eight things that make startups a living hell. I find it very interesting that most of those 8, when reading, I couldn’t help but think “that’s exactly why I want to start a startup”. Allow me to explain:

I live for being busy, and despise busy work. I love the idea of dedicating months of your life to a cause because you want to, because it’s something you want to do, not some executive order. The possibility of controlling every aspect of what you do (except for the occasional force majeure) in the attempt to make something big…something with an impact, seems like the only career path that’s worthwhile to me.

I read on a blog somewhere (not sure where, if I find it I’ll post a link) that the author foresees that a commonly-heard answer to the question “what are you doing after college?” will be “forming a startup”.

Some people were meant for PhDs, some for day jobs, and some were meant to work day and night for months on end with little chance of success but infinite possibilities. Those people form startups.

startups